Civil Procedure
| Author | Jeffrey Wilson |
| Pages | 379-385 |
Page 379
Civil procedure refers to that body of law (usually in the form of collective and published rules) that concerns itself with the methods, procedures, and practices used in civil proceedings. Civil proceedings are distinguished from criminal or administrative proceedings, which are governed by their own respective rules of procedure. Most (but not all) civil proceedings involve "litigation" or lawsuits between private parties or entities (such as business corporations) and the focus herein generally relates to key procedures in the litigation process.
Procedural law is intended to safeguard those vested rights in life, liberty, and property that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [the "due process clause"]; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution makes those provisions applicable to the states.
In almost every civil lawsuit, there will be a prevailing (winning) party and a defeated (losing) party. Judgment against the losing party (whether it is the person who filed the claim or the person against whom the claim was made) generally means he or she will be adversely affected. The constitutional guarantee of "due process of law" ensures that persons whose rights may be adversely affected by litigation have the opportunity for their "day in court,"—to be heard and to present proof(s) in support of their claim or defense. Accordingly, before any judgment can be made for or against a party, certain procedural safeguards warrant that a just and fair hearing on the matter has been conducted and that all parties whose interests may be affected by the controversy have been notified of their right to be heard.
Civil procedure, then, helps provide the "structure" needed to guarantee a fair and just determination of the controversy, while also serving to move the matter through the legal system in an orderly and consistent manner. It governs such actions as the way in which service of process is made upon a defendant, the number of days and manner in which parties may "discover" one another's evidence, and
Page 380
the manner in which parties may present their controversies or objections to the court. Additional rules of procedure may have more simple purposes, such as uniformity or judicial economy. In any event, courts have the power and authority of law (in the absence of abuse of discretion) to dismiss lawsuits and/or deny remedies if procedural rules are not followed.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution expressly creates a federal court system, and Section 2 of that Article further declares that jurisdiction (See Jurisdiction, below) of the U.S. Supreme Court and courts within the federal system shall be subject to "such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Those regulations are contained in Section 1251 of Title 28 of the United States Code (U.S.C. or U.S.C.A.—designating the annotated version). Section 2072 of 28 U.S.C. 131 (The Rules Enabling Act) authorizes the Supreme Court to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the U.S. district courts (including proceedings before magistrates thereof) and courts of appeals." Similarly, state constitutions and statutes empower the states' highest courts (usually) to regulate civil procedures in state courts.
An important and early determination to be made in each pending action is whether to file a civil lawsuit in the "forum" of a federal court or state court. A court's general authority to hear and/or "adjudicate" a legal matter is referred to as its "jurisdiction." In the United States, jurisdiction is granted to a court or court system by statute or by constitution. A legal decision made by a court that does not have proper jurisdiction is deemed void and non-binding upon the litigants.
Jurisdiction may be referred to as "exclusive," "original," concurrent, general, or limited. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution limits the types of cases that federal courts may hear. Generally speaking, federal courts may hear only those cases involving federal laws, federal or sovereign parties (including states), or disputes between citizens from different states. Thus, federal courts have "limited" jurisdiction, which may be "exclusive" over a matter or party (to the exclusion of any other forum), or may be "concurrent" and shared with state courts. In matters where both federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction, state courts may hear federal law claims (e.g., violations of civil rights), and parties bringing suit may choose the forum. However, when a plaintiff raises both state and federal claims in a state court, the defendant may be able to "remove" the case to a federal court.
A court is competent to hear and decide only those cases whose subject matter fits within the court's scope of authority. Courts of "limited" jurisdiction may be competent to hear only certain matters, such as those involving probate or juvenile cases. Even courts of broad or general jurisdiction may have certain matters removed from their jurisdiction (by statute or state constitution), such as divorce or custody matters, to be handled by other courts. If the controversy involves a parcel of real estate instead of a person, the property must be located within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
A court must have jurisdiction not only over the subject matter of the controversy, but also the parties to the litigation. There is seldom a question of jurisdiction over the plaintiff, since by bringing the action into the court, the plaintiff consents to the court's jurisdiction over him or her. But the plaintiff must also show that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant. In general, this may be established by the defendant's consent, by the defendant's general appearance in court, or by proving a defendant's domicile within the geographic area of the court's jurisdiction (in combination with serving process upon the defendant). A fourth way of acquiring jurisdiction over a defendant relies on "long-arm statutes," which permit a court to "reach" absent defendants or defendants residing in other states by establishing their relationship with the state in which the action was filed (the "forum" state). It may be that they committed the wrongful act within the forum state or transact business within that state or own property in that state, etc.
Finally, many courts limit their jurisdiction to cases in...
To continue reading
Request your trial